I don't think suing the feed company would be the first step. But rather a claim of some sorts. But the claim would need to be on the basis of the feed not meeting specification. This is arguable as it seems CSS management only realised late in the game that feed was a problem. It seems they have been using it happily. They should have identified the feed issue upon receipt of the goods and through normal use and internal tests. They have waited too long. So this would put their claim at risk. So perhaps they never had a clear feed specification with the supplier. I am surprised it has taken CSS so long to work out that feed was a problem OR they have been in fact using the wrong feed through choice. You would think this would be 101 aquaculture re: understanding the importance of feed and the underlying health and conversion / yields of the fish?
CSS Price at posting:
2.6¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
